CM: No plans in the future to lock SAS or maneuver nodes behind progression

[Vl3d]

<Q> will the SAS functions and maneuver nodes be unlocked progressively like in carreer KSP1?

<A> not in For Science! and no plans in the future to lock SAS or maneuver nodes behind progression

https://discord.com/channels/1039959585949237268/1039965578754007060/1169414289686286346

...

So this means all probes have access to all SAS functions from the start? That makes it harder to differentiate them. Also doesn't that mean we're not getting Kerbal Pilots experience progression? Also not having all SAS function from the start was a good way to make the player learn to control the NavBall.

[Periple]

I disagree. It just created an inverted difficulty curve in a game that already was much too difficult to get started with. 

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, Periple said:

I disagree. It just created an inverted difficulty curve in a game that already was much too difficult to get started with. 

Ok, but how do you differentiate probes and pilots then? Are pilots and kerbal classes even going to be in the game?

[Superfluous J]

I never liked the implementation (games should give you better stuff as you progress, not hold back essential controls - especially while you're learning how to play!) however I liked that the progression existed.

I hope they have a plan for it, and just haven't told us yet.

I can't think of a good way to implement it but no one's paying me to build a game so I get a pass

Here's a thought, what if probes could ONLY use those buttons? No fine control at all. In order to WASD steer you NEED a pilot. That's how probes work in KSP1 when you have no comms. And you can do a surprising lot of things with just those buttons.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Superfluous J

[stephensmat]

I understand the reason for the progression in KSP1, but it seemed contrived.

Remember that KSP2 has a whole other reason for Kerbals to fly in person with Colony systems. Also, it's a simulation of spaceflight, and in the 15-odd years since KSP1, we've seen autopilot rockets flown, and landed enough times to wreck the curve on successful flights.

[Periple]

48 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Ok, but how do you differentiate probes and pilots then? Are pilots and kerbal classes even going to be in the game?

Probes need signal to control and kerbals don't. That's a non-trivial and fun problem to solve if you're sending out probes. I haven't paid much attention to how they're going to differentiate them otherwise, and I'm quite curious to find out!

[Vl3d]

15 minutes ago, Periple said:

Probes need signal to control and kerbals don't. That's a non-trivial and fun problem to solve if you're sending out probes. I haven't paid much attention to how they're going to differentiate them otherwise, and I'm quite curious to find out!

I mean to say how do you differentiate between different probe models and between pilots with varying experience levels?

[Mutex]

13 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I mean to say how do you differentiate between different probe models and between pilots with varying experience levels?

I'm not sure kerbal experience is planned to be a thing in KSP2, I've not seen anything about it. Personally I wasn't a fan of it, it created lots of busy-work training up your kerbals.

As for different models of probes, that's a fair point, why use a large, heavy probe core when a little one will do. Probe cores contain batteries and reaction wheels I believe, so they could have varying amounts of those things.

[ttikkoo]

10 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I mean to say how do you differentiate between different probe models and between pilots with varying experience levels?

SAS/maneuver nodes aren't the only point of difference between probe models. Probes can have different internal EC, different torque, different antennas as well as any new functionality that may be introduced. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know if experience is a thing with pilots - if it is, they can be differentiated by any other feature that we don't yet know about. 

[Vl3d]

Just now, Mutex said:

Probe cores contain batteries and reaction wheels I believe, so they could have varying amounts of those things.

The difference are negligible: 5 / 10 / 20 / 30 for EC and something like 0.1 / 0.4 / 0.5 for internal reaction wheels.

Basically the only significant differences between a HECS and an OCTO are the number of sides, 10 EC and 0.1 torque. Am I crazy in saying they could just delete one of the probes?

[Periple]

25 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I mean to say how do you differentiate between different probe models and between pilots with varying experience levels?

As I said, I'm quite curious to find out. There's a quite a lot of things they could do if they wanted to!

Off the top of my head:

• Low-tier probe cores are heavy, use a lot of EC, can't run science experiments, and are inoperable when not in comms range
• Mid-tier probe cores are lighter, more efficient, and have basic controls when not in comms range (throttle on/off, orient towards prograde/retrograde/etc)
• High-tier probe cores are fully controllable even out of comms range ("because they have AI!")
• Highest-tier probe cores are fully autonomous, effectively pilot replacements: they also allow planning maneuvers even out of comms range

Kerbal professions/experience:

• Only pilots can fly craft
• Experienced pilots can also remote-control probes
• Extremely experienced pilots can execute maneuvers automatically
• Scientists add a bonus to science yield, which scales with experience
• Some of the biggest-payoff experiments require scientists
• Engineers improve yield/rate of resource extraction/refining, which scales with experience
• Engineer experience unlocks EVA repairs and builds of increasing complexity

I have no idea whether they even want to go in this direction, and I'm also sure it's possible to think of lots of other possibilities!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Periple

[cocoscacao]

We still don't know if Ks are gonna have xp this time around. I was always weary of pilots... Don't tell me they don't know what prograde/retrograde & the rest is. Better solution would be G tolerance.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Am I crazy in saying they could just delete one of the probes?

Not at all. One for each size level seems more than enough for me.

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Ok, but how do you differentiate probes and pilots then? Are pilots and kerbal classes even going to be in the game?

I kind of hope not. Individual skills training gets real grindy real quick as you start adding more and more crew. It's just a lot of really repetitive missions to the same places just to repeatedly unlock basic functions the player should always have access to. 

[Periple]

25 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I kind of hope not. Individual skills training gets real grindy real quick as you start adding more and more crew. It's just a lot of really repetitive missions to the same places just to repeatedly unlock basic functions the player should always have access to. 

It was definitely that in KSP1 but it doesn't have to be that way. If done well it can add a nice dash of flavor without becoming a required activity!

Random tangent about probe cores... I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy, negligible mass, and really low EC requirements, with a few other teeny-tiny parts to match. This would make it possible to design super, super tiny probes for your first interstellar missions. This is even at least passingly realistic!

https://www.space.com/36783-interstellar-spaceflight-breakthrough-starshot-panspermia.html

[Vl3d]

39 minutes ago, Periple said:

It was definitely that in KSP1 but it doesn't have to be that way. If done well it can add a nice dash of flavor without becoming a required activity!

Random tangent about probe cores... I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy, negligible mass, and really low EC requirements, with a few other teeny-tiny parts to match. This would make it possible to design super, super tiny probes for your first interstellar missions. This is even at least passingly realistic!

https://www.space.com/36783-interstellar-spaceflight-breakthrough-starshot-panspermia.html

The reason those are so light is because they're accelerated using lasers. Solar sails and radiation pressure is not planned to be a thing in KSP before 1.0.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I kind of hope not. Individual skills training gets real grindy real quick as you start adding more and more crew. It's just a lot of really repetitive missions to the same places just to repeatedly unlock basic functions the player should always have access to. 

I don't care if skill experience is in the game, but it would be absurd if classes like Pilot, Scientist, Engineer, Medic are omitted.

[Periple]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I don't care if skill experience is in the game, but it would be absurd if classes like Pilot, Scientist, Engineer, Medic are omitted.

Why would it be absurd? And what would Medics be for, if there's no LS?

[Vl3d]

10 minutes ago, Periple said:

Why would it be absurd? And what would Medics be for, if there's no LS?

Radiation poisoning, zero gravity bone density damage, not enough habitation space..

Edited November 2, 2023 by Vl3d

[mattihase]

I think it'd make more sense for class experience game to not be tied to their abilities to do basic stuff in flight, but rather improve what they do when colonies are implemented. Pilot levels not unlocking SAS nodes, but rather how complex automated routes can be. engineers can always do engineer stuff but more xp makes them able to mantain more of a colony with fewer kerbals, scientists of higher levels can perform new experiments in colony labs, etc.

So like keep the pilot for cockpit SAS (as you can get around that super quick but it still makes them a good choice for low mass/early flights), engineers repair, scientists refit expendable experiments dynamic, just remove the frustrations from it and move the level up stuff into the management sim level of things.

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy

KILLA-9000. Kerbal Interstallar Life Lookout Algorithm that turns rogue half way through the voyage? 

[Periple]

49 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Radiation poisoning, zero gravity bone density damage, not enough habitation space..

I'm confused, have they been talking about these kinds of systems? Or are these just things you'd like to be in the game?

[Kerbart]

6 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I never liked the implementation (games should give you better stuff as you progress, not hold back essential controls - especially while you're learning how to play!) however I liked that the progression existed.

I don’t agree fully with that. Essential  is pro-grade hold and those were offered very early on. The rest is nice to have, and it increases accuracy but it’s certainly not essential. And to get your pilots the full skill set you hardly need toleave the Kerbin system (yes you do, but just, no complex missions needed)

In general I think that tieing skills to experience makes more sense than to attributes (like g-force tolerance) as there’s a far more logical relation.

[Vl3d]

6 minutes ago, Periple said:

I'm confused, have they been talking about these kinds of systems? Or are these just things you'd like to be in the game?

Radiation has been basically confirmed to be in the game.

Gravity rings are confirmed.

Habitation parts have not yet been directly confirmed, but I assume a lot of space station parts are for kerbals living quarters.

[Periple]

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Radiation has been basically confirmed to be in the game.

Really? I seem to recall that this was in Nate's "I'd love to do that but" bin. Do you have a source?

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Gravity rings are confirmed.

Have any mechanics related to them been confirmed?

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Habitation parts have not yet been directly confirmed, but I assume a lot of space station parts are for kerbals living quarters.

Same thing here?

I don't mean to rain on your parade but it does seem to me that you're drawing rather large inferences from a few things that have been confirmed -- to get from gravity rings to simulating kerbal bone strength and requiring medics is a pretty big leap!

What I mean is -- it's fun to speculate about what might be in the game, or talk about stuff that you'd like to be in the game, but I think it's super important to keep the distinctions clear, otherwise you're just imagining a version of a game that'll never happen and set yourself (and anyone who gets drawn in) up for a big disappointment!

Edited November 2, 2023 by Periple

[Vl3d]

9 minutes ago, Periple said:

Really? I seem to recall that this was in Nate's "I'd love to do that but" bin. Do you have a source?

Spoiler

Strawberry

While we do know it wont be added in the short term, the team has previously been wishy washy if radiation/life support will make it into the game. Are these topics something that the team has decided wont be in the game until maybe after 1.0, something the team has a firm answer on what they want to do with but does not wish to disclose it (though if you do wish to disclose please do), or something that the team is geniunely undecided on
See answer to Pthigviri about LS stuff.

Radiation is a bit more interesting to me because I have a fair bit of history in mods with it, and I’ve eagerly assimilated the early concept work the team has done for KSP2.  There are two tradespaces in terms of vessel design, point sources and ambient radiation that we at least nominally want to think about including.

Ambient radiation is basically a time trade. How long can you spend in a radioactive environment? You can throw things like radiation shielding, storm shelters, etc but ultimately it all comes down to time to Bad Things. It’s harder to help a player to plan. You have to give them tools to determine how much radiation there is around somewhere and how to figure out how long they can spend there, etc. 

Point radiation is nuclear engines and reactors. This is harder to implement but is definitely relevant in terms of craft design, because it is a big part of why fictional interstellar ships look the way they do. Interestingly it is easier to model and communicate to the player because you know lots of the variables at vessel build time. One of the messy things here though is that as soon as you throw in radiation, you railroad players into building ships with nuclear engines in a very specific way. We have to craft a solution that hits a nice middle ground. See this comment.

I’m candidly going to say that we don’t have the ideal solution in the bag right now – but that’s what EA is all about. I’m sure I’ll write some kinda discourse on radiation eventually for a dev blog and everyone can weigh in on why I’m wrong :P.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Periple said:

Have any mechanics related to them been confirmed?

Just that they spin to generate artificial gravity (binary on/off system). As for habitation.. kerbals need space to exist.

9 minutes ago, Periple said:

I don't mean to rain on your parade but it does seem to me that you're drawing rather large inferences from a few things that have been confirmed -- to get from gravity rings to simulating kerbal bone strength and requiring medics is a pretty big leap!

You asked "medics what for" and I gave you some examples why I think medics should be in the game. I think my "take these thoughts and put them in your head" skills are lacking. Somewhere down the line "I'll take these words and replace them with my thoughts" happened on your side.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Vl3d